What is missing in your analysis is that of our first 8 games or so we had a very tough schedule. Five road games. Facing teams like the Ravens (9-2), Falcons (10-1), Giants (7-4; twice), Bears (8-3). The "softer" matchups were against the Bucs (6-5) and Seahawks (6-5). The only team we faced that isn't in the playoff hunt is the Panthers (2-8).

Which clearly tells us that we are not a playoff caliber team and could not contend with anything resembling a 'good team'.

Now as we are firmly in the much softer part of our schedule, we are undermanned. I expect that having Church, Lee, and Ratliff for example, might have made a very big difference in how we handled the Redskins last week.

It could have, but I'm sure not hanging my hopes, on the coulda, shoulda, woulda's that the theory entails.

I spent way too much time with woulda, coulda, and shoulda last year and I'm done with that.

Now the onus is on them to show me what they can - or can't do.

And I see exactly what they are showing me.

My only hope now is that this year's failure brings the necessary changes to how things are done around Valley Ranch.

But I sure as heck don't want to see anyone - especially the owner - trying to sell me on injuries being an excuse for why this team failed in 2012.

What is missing in your analysis is that of our first 8 games or so we had a very tough schedule. Five road games. Facing teams like the Ravens (9-2), Falcons (10-1), Giants (7-4; twice), Bears (8-3). The "softer" matchups were against the Bucs (6-5) and Seahawks (6-5). The only team we faced that isn't in the playoff hunt is the Panthers (2-8).

Now as we are firmly in the much softer part of our schedule, we are undermanned. I expect that having Church, Lee, and Ratliff for example, might have made a very big difference in how we handled the Redskins last week.

If that's the case, what's missing in your analysis is a comparison between team health and schedule difficulty league wide and how both relate to a team's ability to win.

I was making no such comparison. I was simply pointing out that the team has been playing .500 ball regardless of who's been suiting up for them. Consequently, we can't say their record would be any better sans injuries because there's no evidence of it.

Are we defending the team's 5-6 record based on their injuries and the fact their schedule is too difficult? If the Cowboys can only be expected to win when they're completely healthy and they play cream puffs, it's no small wonder they have a .500 record since 1997.

If that's the case, what's missing in your analysis is a comparison between team health and schedule difficulty league wide and how both relate to a team's ability to win.

I was making no such comparison. I was simply pointing out that the team has been playing .500 ball regardless of who's been suiting up for them. Consequently, we can't say their record would be any better sans injuries because there's no evidence of it.

Are we defending the team's 5-6 record based on their injuries and the fact their schedule is too difficult? If the Cowboys can only be expected to win when they're completely healthy and they play cream puffs, it's no small wonder they have a .500 record since 1997.

If that is the case, what is missing in your analysis is application of basic principles of logic.

Ask this of any fan. If you have your best players, does it make a difference? Does it make more of a difference against good or mediocre teams? From all the comments we get here about "resting Player X b/c we don't need him against Cleveland," I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

Also, ask this of any fan? Is it easier to win at home or on the road? Or against teams with winning vs. losing records?

check out this article from Mike Florio from last year about Murray's durability.

Murray had more than his share of injuries during four years at Oklahoma, and the inability of a tailback to show durability at the college level usually translates to an inability to stay healthy at the NFL level, given that he’s being hit by much bigger and stronger and faster grown men in the pro game.

If that's the case, what's missing in your analysis is a comparison between team health and schedule difficulty league wide and how both relate to a team's ability to win.

I was making no such comparison. I was simply pointing out that the team has been playing .500 ball regardless of who's been suiting up for them. Consequently, we can't say their record would be any better sans injuries because there's no evidence of it.

Are we defending the team's 5-6 record based on their injuries and the fact their schedule is too difficult? If the Cowboys can only be expected to win when they're completely healthy and they play cream puffs, it's no small wonder they have a .500 record since 1997.

The dynamic that he has created so that he can 'feel comfortable' has kept this team firmly in the mediocre zone.

Stop looking at Jason Garrett and what he 'could become' and look at what is.

And ask yourself if keeping Garrett and being patient with his obvious struggles is worth more the careers of Ware, Witten, and Romo.

Do you think you have a better chance of finding a better, more qualified head coach who can win in the not-too-distant future with this group or is there a better chance that you'll get players as good or betteer than what you have now when Garrett is fully prepared?

I see a ton of guys who are hurt. Does that mean we should fire Woicek, a guy who everyone here seems to think is amazing?

I don't see injuries that would point the finger at anything Woicek is or isn't doing as being the reason so I'm not blaming him.

That doesn't mean that there aren't areas for improvement -- but I've watched football long enough to know it doesn't take a wholesale change to go from .500 to going deep in the playoffs

I think it takes a fundamental change - as mentioned above - if there is any hope of winning with the current group.

If anyone can point me to somewhere where 'the process' is bearing fruit, I'd be most interested.

If that is the case, what is missing in your analysis is application of basic principles of logic.

Ask this of any fan. If you have your best players, does it make a difference? Does it make more of a difference against good or mediocre teams? From all the comments we get here about "resting Player X b/c we don't need him against Cleveland," I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

Also, ask this of any fan? Is it easier to win at home or on the road? Or against teams with winning vs. losing records?

Speaking of "application of basic principles of logic", it would behoove you to read what I'm actually saying.

Explaining away the Cowboys' .500 record on the basis of injuries is flawed logic because they were .500 when those injuries occurred. Consequently, there's no tangible proof their record would be better without those injuries.

One can't simply assume a team would have won Game A if Player X had been available and/or the team had played the game at home rather than on the road. That's faulty logic. Case in point: The Packers were healthier in 2011 than they were in 2010. Moreover, they had homefield advantage through the playoffs in 2011 and were a permanent roadie in 2010. Yet, they won the Super Bowl in 2010 and saw an early exit in 2011.

Last year, the Giants were depleted by injuries, and had only one home playoff game. Yet, they went on to win the Super Bowl.

You see, given the nature of our analysis, I would argue that hard evidence is just as important as pure logic.

Might be available, was still playing at a very high level. Maybe a year off will give him a few more years.

I would love to get Brian Waters next season to add some vet leadership to this OL. Waters was still playing at pro bowl level for Pats last season.

And Poppinga should be able to contribute right away. He played for Rob Ryan in Cleveland so should be familiar with the scheme/terminology. Poppinga can also play multiple LB positions, inside or outside.